How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

This is a discussion on How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; He's totally right. This is the way to ban guns if you really want to do it. Take note of this because this is a ...

He's totally right. This is the way to ban guns if you really want to do it. Take note of this because this is a primer of what will happen if they carry a full ban.

Their goal is to ostracize gun owners. He's advocating for society to shun the gun owner so perhaps he/she will succumb to societal pressures. The seasoned gun owner won't buckle to such tactics but the younger upcoming generation will fall prey to it. Have you ever seen a small child reprimand an adult for smoking? Wait until your 5 yr. old niece gives you a lecture about how irresponsible it is for you to own a gun. Those days are coming. Without an upcoming generation of gun enthusiast/advocates to replace the gun owners that are currently in place, there won't even be a market for guns in the future outside of a thug looking for an efficient tool to commit his/her crimes with, etc.

I would like to know though if any of the mass murderers were NRA members? He keeps talking about how NRA members should be profiled but I'm suspecting that the average thug on the street that kills with a gun is NOT an NRA member. I'm also suspecting that the lunatic that flys off the handle and kills a mob of people with a rifle from a watchtower is also NOT an NRA member either. This is a presupposition he's trying to pan off on the average uninformed citizen that buys into the media's garb.

Sporks gives a template to contemplate but the execution thereof is another matter altogether. He talks about hunting and extinguishing it through taxation and an anti-hunting campaign. I don't think, however, it will be as easy to accomplish these matters as he makes it out to be in his piece. Hunting is a long standing institution in this country and to extinguish it in the promise of creating a utopia is a pipe dream. We're not going to give our traditions up for a fairy tale.

Earlier, I said that Sporks is totally right but in saying this, I'm only referring to the execution of of his plan that follows his ultimate conclusion; we must extinguish guns...and this is how to do it, etc. The only problem with Sporks' piece is that it is built on a house of cards. He gives us his premise with this statement; "The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns." The problem, however, is that his premise is invalid. Sporks is committing a logical fallacy known as a "False dilema or black/white" fallacy. With this fallacy, Sporks is presenting us with false dilema by telling us that there's only ONE way to be safe and prevent gun violence when in reality there's a plethora of solutions that can make us safe and prevent gun violence.

There's another problem with Sporks' argument. He singles out gun violence as if violence that is committed by a gun is somehow worse than violence that isn't committed with a gun. This is as if it would be worse if you died from a gun shot wound as opposed to a knife wound. Does it really matter if your attacker used a gun or a knife if you died? Dead is dead regardless of the instrument used to bring about your demise. We need to drive this point home with the AWB advocates. We need to get to the heart of these issues if we are to find real solutions. We need to annihilate the causes behind these violent acts and stop blaming the tools used. Guns do not cause anything, their implementation is a result, thereof. Lanza's guns didn't cause the CT massacre, his mental illness is a direct cause as well as a whole host of other issues that accompanied his mental state.

......sounds like one of our own trying to get you guys fired up. Way too accurate gun speak language.
But.... he is spot on in his thoughts on how it will get done.

I peg this as an inside job.

I had the same thoughts. I can't decide if this guy is really just that crazy, or is intentionally being crazy sounding to try to make a point of how stupid the arguments are. He seems to have some very inflated views of the power and popularity of the president, and is completely arogant in how his view is the only one that has any validity.

I'm not sure I could pretend to be a better nut job than he is being. Alright, that's not true.

You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You are able to say to yourself, "I have lived through this horror. I can take the next thing that comes along." . . . You must do the thing you think you cannot do. Eleanor Roosevelt

Hes got a legitimate blueprint. But his plan is to build the house on a quicksand bed.

It's illegal in four different ways.
The courts have set a precedent of not allowing these things to happen.
The majority of the nation will never approve of a gun ban, and we've seen the numbers time and time again to prove it.
Even if guns were banned, noncompliance would cripple it; civil war would be a very real and likely outcome.
Show me the government agent who would break into home after home, destroying three major parts of the constitution he swore to protect, and destroying the lives of his neighbors, and I'll show you one stone-cold dude.

As we used to teach in the spook business, carry a 25 if it makes you feel good, but do not ever load it. If you load it you may shoot it. If you shoot it you may hit somebody, and if you hit somebody - and he finds out about it - he may be very angry with you. -- Jeff Cooper